Interesting comments from someone whose account is a month old.

You’re right Cougar, only a month to come to the same conclusion as those that have been here for years, you may have discovered a genius!

You are not applying the new information correctly. As demonstrated by Bayes Theorem and carefully explained by multiple stats experts.

Conversely, you are not applying Bayes Theorem correctly and I’m really not sure what “stats experts” we have here or what relevance they have to my point, though referring to Bayes is proof that you don’t

I can accept no-one is able to get my point and am perfectly happy with that but it does not mean it is invalid. :)

I think the term is “trolling”

That title goes to Cougar for deliberately posting a thread that he hoped would be contentious.

I’d wait for the Christmas sales.

Well I had no idea it was International Men’s Day until I opened this thread, which is ironic as it appears to be full of ****.

For the sake of the 50%ers, like sbob, who seem to be saying

I’ve been very clear about my position, just that too many people are too busy thinking they are clever to try and understand what I have been saying.

If you pick up a dog and it is male, then the other dog is either male or female.
If you pick up a dog and it is female then the other dog is male.
MM, MF, FM, three options, 1/3rd. Never disputed this, the maths using this methodology is simple.

My position was whether or not this is using the information correctly as it is given in the conundrum. Using all instantaneous knowledge of the dogs from the wife’s “yes” it is arguably possible to come to a different conclusion as I have explained many times, rather than the step by step logic above which is not how we gain the information.

What I was baiting for was for someone to try and prove or disprove what I had said by expressing it mathematically, which would have led us down a much more interesting road, had anyone been able to.

There is no BODMAS for this question…

how on earth do you people cope without beards?

Not looking like a paedophile, hipster or serial killer does reap its own benefits.

Out of season

What possible bearing does that have on the OP? They’ve rented the apartment out, same as they would at any time of year.

Presumably the crossing lights were red. If so the car was in the wrong, if not then there’s something wrong with the crossing.

Without knowing the value of the train’s house it is simply impossible to apportion blame, Lazy journalism.

Usual excuses to follow.

Blinded by the sun.

Nothing reflective on the train.

Train painted a dark colour.

No lights on train.

Didn’t see you mate.

I bet the train wasn’t even wearing a helmet!

That’s the original problem

No it isn’t.

Can we get sbob on the original Monty Hall problem next?

Always switch.
The plane takes off.
Remain.

HTH.

Care to point out the flaw in my logic?

Gladly.

You’re reverting back to a calculation that provides us with wrong answers.
Then instead of changing the calculation, you’re still just fudging the answers.

Actually, forget it, I give up. You’re a lost cause. You’re going to argue that black is white until you get run over on a zebra crossing.

You reap what you sow.

It’s not me that is the one with the entrenched way of thinking. :)

*mic drop*

That’s a terrible effort.

All you are saying is Y is wrong because X is right. You haven’t added anything. And we know X is wrong because it gives us impossible answers.

Didn’t stop you last night.

Boo to you, fun-sponge.

Top work Cougar

mattoutandabout would be proud!

Not yet Drac, just five more pages.

I’ve only two and a half hours til work, make ’em count.

We only know 1 is, with the information provided by a 3rd party.

We know one is, but we also know the other might be.

This has been explained in lots of different ways and at this point sbob and others have just chosen to ignore the fact that they are wrong. There is only one answer and that is 1/3.

It has been explained in exactly the same way just with added levels of obfuscation. Stating someone is wrong is not proof that they are. I repeated several times that I fully understand the 1/3 maths but it is down to the interpretation which I have explained.

However, nowhere in the puzzle does it suggest that we have identified one specific dog, at all.

And yet that is precisely what you have to do to arrive at the four freedoms, err outcomes. If you don’t do that then you can’t achieve M/F and F/M as the separate outcomes you need to reach the 1/3 conclusion.

Otherwise you return to the situation where either of the dogs is male, the other might be.

Later that evening the man is washing his mountain bikes. What are the odds one is an e bike and the other is a rigid 29r?

On what day did he purchase the e-bike?

reminds me, of this:

One of favourite books!

2. If both cards are hearts (girls), return the cards to the deck and shuffle again

I suppose you think we should be having a second referendum, you know, until we get the result that we want?

TIME FOR EXPERIMENTATION!!!

Your experiment is as flawed as the earlier coin toss suggestions. They both produce results that do not fit in with the question therefore are not valid.

I’m doing the opposite of engineering the scenario, I’m looking at the question as is.

The 1/3rd answer is the engineered dissection.

As I said earlier, this isn’t about the maths, it’s about how one’s brain deals with information. On one hand there is a group assessing all the information at once, on the other there is a group that has to break down the information to make sense of it.
You have: if dog 1 = M, then dog 2 = M or F coupled with If dog 1 = F, then dog 2 = M, giving the three options.

or

You have a dog which is male and the other that is male or female.

I can quite easily see how the former is more attractive to a certain type.

The fact of the matter remains that there are two dogs; one male, one male or female. There is no point in talking about a female dog that does not exist in the question.

Safe to say, maths trumps all else.

Only if you use the correct maths.

The 1/3ers cannot cope with applying all their information at once, as garnered from the question.

They would be the people looking at the ever decreasing steps taken by Achilles in Zeno’s famous paradox completely failing to realise that the tortoise would be overtaken.

Inside STW:

Nice pic TJ.

Lovely pic.

I sincerely doubt if anyone on this forum drinks anywhere near as much as I do. I know I should drink less (for health) but I bloody love it.

Start from the point where you have a dog in each hand

That point does not exist.

You have literally just quoted me not using the word “if” then told me off for using the word “if”.

Sorry, I thought in relation to logic it was obvious.

What you have been saying all along is that if the dog in your left hand is male then the dog in your right is male or female, and if the dog in your left is female then the dog in your right is male which gives you your three options.

This is where you have been going wrong. There is no if, no one then the other because as soon as you consider one it changes the odds of the other which is not dictated in the original conundrum.

There are two dogs, one is male, the other is male or female.

Okay, using logic, list the possible gender combinations of Dog A and Dog B, given that you know they are not both female?

Dog A or B is male.

The other is male or female.

The word you are incorrectly using in your logic is “if”.

There is no “if”, there is only “is”.

You also said try calling them Ishmael and Leslie

That was more an attempt at humour and probably just confused matters. Ishmael and Leslie are just synonyms for the dog that is male and the dog that is either. It does not matter which is which.

I tried creating a new model

And you failed because you are still dissecting the problem into two (or three!) parts that happen one after the other. This is not the case.

We know one of the dogs is male.

We know the other dog is either.

It doesn’t matter which is which, it changes nothing.

This is another case of not seeing the wood for the trees.

depending on how you select your data

Getting closer!

Evening once more.

Interesting that all the 1/3ers have ignored the point I made about how you use the new information, with the exception of convert who is nearly there but too entrenched to admit he is wrong even though he might understand it.

This isn’t a maths problem, the maths is simple. It’s a philosophical problem about how you use information.

If you check the sex of one dog, and then check the sex of the other, then 1/3 is the correct answer.

Unfortunately, this does not describe the problem.

One dog is male, one dog is either, and it doesn’t matter which one is which.

It is interesting to see how the different “personality types” manage or fail to deal with this idea, though I am surprised so many are struggling with (or plain ignoring) it. :)

How do you know Leslie isn’t male and Ishmael is female? Why have you ruled that out as an option?

It doesn’t matter, one of them is, one of them might be.

Pick up a dog.

But we haven’t picked up any dogs. You’re still ascribing the old model.

We have one dog that is male, we’ll call him Ishmael, and we have one dog that is either, we’ll call them Leslie.

I think where you are going wrong is trying to split the new information into little bits you consider one at a time. That doesn’t happen. You gain all the new info all at once.

It doesn’t matter if Ishmael is the puppy on the left or the puppy on the right, the other puppy is Leslie.

I can see why you’d do it mind.

Imagine the dogs being washed are a Great Dane, and a Yorkshire terrier

For good reason, the OP clearly states they are both Beagles.

Chapeau sbob.

Cheers!
I’d say I’m here all night but I’ve got to go to work.

Okay so pick up one of those dogs at random then.

But they are not random.